Relevance Disputed

Lawyers for the two sides said they disagree onthe importance of the papers which contain reviewsof tenure candidates by the Business School'stenure committee. The missing documents includethe mid-1970s and continue at least until theearly 1980s, Lawson said, but it is unclear if allpapers during the period were destroyed.

Michaelson said yesterday that the papers inquestion do not contain discussions of the Jacksondecision itself, and said that Harvard was beingasked to provide marginally relevant information."There's a point at which these pretrial discoverydemands can be a fishing expedition," he said."The net is being stretched very wide by Ms.Jackson."

But Jackson's lawyers say that the papers maylend crucial support to their contention that maleprofessors with comparable qualifications havebeen granted tenure at the Business School. In hisruling, Garrity upheld Jackson's request.

Disagreement has also arisen over theUniversity's ability to replace the papers. WhileMichaelson says that Harvard will be able to"reconstruct" the necessary files from otherdocuments, Lawson says he may have to speakdirectly to members of the Business School tenurecommittee.

In the suit, Jackson had also asked that theidentities of the members of the tenure committeewho were involved in her decision be revealed.Garrity denied her request on August 12.Michaelson hailed this portion of the judge'sruling. "The tenure process depends on evaluatorsbeing able to speak their mind candidly,"Michaelson said